"There is little evidence that the Act has reduced the
production of child pornography or the child sexual abuse
associated with its creation," wrote Judge Jan E DuBois, of the US
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "On the
other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that implementation
of the Act has resulted in massive suppression of speech protected
by the First Amendment".
The case was brought by the Washington-based Center for
Democracy and Technology (CDT) together with the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania, and Penn state ISP
Plantagenet Inc.
Under the controversial Internet Child Pornography Act – the
first of its kind in the US the state Attorney General or
any county district attorney can unilaterally apply to a local
judge for an order declaring that certain internet content may be
child pornography, and requiring any ISP serving Pennsylvania to
block the content.
However, the claimants argued that, because of technical
difficulties, most ISPs can only comply with the order by blocking
a large volume of innocent web content as well as target pages.
Often this means blocking access throughout an ISP's network,
meaning that the Pennsylvanian orders affect internet users
throughout the US.
Over one and a half million innocent web sites have been blocked
as a result of the Act, the lawsuit claimed.
Pennsylvania State Attorney General Jerry Pappert disagreed,
arguing that current technology was sufficiently advanced to be
able to block only targeted sites, and that if ISPs were blocking
other sites, it was because they were not doing it properly.
On Friday Judge Jan DuBois issued his ruling. "With the current
state of technology," he wrote, "the act cannot be implemented
without excessive blocking of innocent speech in violation of the
First Amendment".
He found that the two alternatives that could reasonably be used
by the ISPs in complying with the court order both resulted in the
overblocking of web sites – and rejected the blocking method
advocated by the State as "infeasible".
According to Judge DuBois, the state administration had not
proved that the Act had reduced child abuse or child exploitation
and therefore, "the Act suppresses substantially more protected
material than is essential to the furtherance of the government's
interest in reducing child sexual abuse."
The ACLU welcomed the ruling, which has been watched closely
across the US. Several states, including Maryland, have been
considering implementing similar legislation.
Sean Connolly, spokesman for the state Attorney General, told
Reuters that his office is reviewing the decision to decide whether
or not to file an appeal.
